Preliminary Results of Ibrutinib Followed By Ofatumumab Consolidation in Previously Untreated Patients with Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): GELLC7 Trials from the Spanish Group of CLL (GELLC)

Introduction. Despite the high proportion of prolonged remissions obtained with ibrutinib in patients with CLL, complete responses (CR) are rarely observed. For the purpose of increasing the deepness of response, ibrutinib has been tested in combination with other drugs that exert a different mechanism of action. Thus, monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been concomitantly combined with ibrutinib in untreated or R/R CLLs. Nonetheless, several data derived from both in vitro and clinical studies do not support a synergistic effect of the concomitant administration of ibrutinib with anti-CD20 mAbs. Herein, we present the preliminary results of a multi-center, non-randomized phase 2 study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of the sequential treatment of CLL patients with ibrutinib followed, in those not attaining CR, by a consolidation phase with ofatumumab (GELLC-7, EudraCT number 2016-004937-26). Patients and methods. Patients aged ≥18 years, physically fit (CIRS score < 6) with treatment-naïve CLL were enrolled in this study. Patients received an induction phase consisting of 12 cycles (28-day) of ibrutinib in monotherapy at 420 mg once daily. Patients attaining a CR after this induction phase were kept on ibrutinib until progression. In contrast, patients not obtaining a CR also continued on ibrutinib but received a consolidation treatment with 7 doses of ofatumumab (300 mg D1 and 1000mg D8 of C13, 1000 mg D1 of C14-C18). The primary endpoint of the study was the CR rate assessed after 20 cycles of treatment (2 months after completing ofatumumab consolidation). Results. 84 patients with a median age 69 years (range 38-84 yrs), 71% male, were included in this study. At inclusion, 83.3% had Binet stage B/C, 61% unmutated IGHV status, and 19% high risk genetic aberrations (7.6% 17p deletion and/or TP53mut, and 11.4% 11q deletion). At the interim data cut-off (June 2019), 7 patients had discontinued the study (progression to Richter transformation, n=1; patient withdrawal, n=3; adverse events [AE], n=3, including one G5 AE), 5 of them during the first 12 cycles of treatment. Sixty-seven patients received the induction phase with 12 cycles of ibrutinib, whereas 22 patients completed 20 cycles of treatment and were evaluable for the primary endpoint of the study. After 12 cycles of ibrutinib, 3 patients (4.5%) were in CR, 54 patients (80.5%) in PR, 6 patients (9%) in PR with lymphocytosis, and 4 patients (6%) in SD. In 20 patients receiving the consolidation with ofatumumab an improvement in response was observed, with 8/20 patients (40%) attaining a CR (7 patients converted PR to CR, and one patient SD to CR), whereas the remaining 12 patients were classified as PR. Two patients that were already in CR at cycle 12 maintained the CR under ibrutinib monotherapy. MRD was undetectable in blood (<10-4 by flow cytometry) only in one of the 22 patients. With a median follow-up of 15 months (2 - 20.2 months), the estimated 12-months PFS and OS was 98%. Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were experienced by 26 patients (31%), whilst 22 serious AEs were observed in 16 patients (19%) (14 infections, 1 febrile neutropenia, 3 dyspnoea, 1 anemia, 1 edema/pleural effusion, 1 renal insufficiency, 1 squamous carcinoma). The most common G3/4 AEs were hematological toxicity (neutropenia [7.1%], anemia [4.5%], thrombocytopenia [2.4%]) and infections (8.5%). The Gr 5 AE consisted of a severe peripheral edema and pleural effusion leading to death. The great majority of SAEs (67%) and G3/4 AEs (66%) were observed during the first 12 cycles of treatment with ibrutinib monotherapy. Conclusions. The preliminary analysis of the GELLC7 trial showed that the addition of consolidation with ofatumumab after 12 cycles of prior treatment with ibrutinib was well tolerated and elicited a deeper response. These results support the potential role of a sequential therapeutic strategy in CLL, where the addition of a consolidation with mAbs in patients with low tumor burden might improve the quality of the response. Finally, more mature results will be further presented at the meeting. Disclosures Abrisqueta: Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Other: Travel, Accommodations, expenses, Speakers Bureau. González-Barca:Kiowa: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Takeda: Honoraria; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celtrion: Consultancy. Terol:Roche: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Research Funding. Baltasar Tello:GILEAD: Honoraria; JANSSEN: Consultancy, Honoraria; ABBVIE: Honoraria; ROCHE: Honoraria. de la Serna:Roche, AbbVie, Gilead, Janssen, Novartis: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Roche, AbbVie, Janssen, Gilead: Speakers Bureau. Ramirez Payer:GILEAD SCIENCES: Research Funding. Cordoba:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Servier: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Kyowa-Kirin: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Gilead: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Roche: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; FUNDACION JIMENEZ DIAZ UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL: Employment; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy. Bosch:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Acerta: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd/Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Kyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. OffLabel Disclosure: Ibrutinib followed by Ofatumumab Consolidation

Download Full-text

Carfilzomib Thalidomide and Dexamethasone Is Safe and Effective in the Treatment of Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: An Open Label Phase II Australasian Leukaemia and Lymphoma Group (ALLG) MM 018/ Asian Myeloma Network (AMN) 002 Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-139174 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 39-40

Author(s):

Hang Quach ◽

Simon J Harrison ◽

Je-Jung Lee ◽

Nichloas Murphy ◽

Jae Hoon Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Multiple Myeloma ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Phase Ii ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Open Label ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Open Label Phase ◽

Grade 3

Background: The combination of carfilzomib with immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs) and dexamethasone is active in multiple myeloma (MM). Carfilzomib, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (KTd) has been studied in upfront MM treatment but has not been studied in the setting of relapsed/refractory myeloma (RRMM). The ALLG MM018/ AMN002 is an open-label phase II study of KTd in patients with RRMM. This study was conducted across 16 sites across Australia, New-Zealand, Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan. Method: Patients with RRMM with 1-3 prior lines of treatment were given carfilzomib [K: 20mg/m2 IV cycle 1 days 1 and 2, 56mg/m2 (36mg/m2 for patients age ≥75 years) from cycle 1 day 8 onwards], thalidomide (T: 100mg po nocte) and dexamethasone [dex: 40mg (20mg for patients age ≥75 years) po weekly], in a 28-day cycle. After 12 cycles, T was omitted, and K was given on days 1,2,15,16 and dex days 1,15 every 28-day cycles for a further six cycles. The primary endpoint was PFS. Secondary endpoints were ORR, overall survival, adverse events, and quality of life (QoL). The study had an 80% power to detect a ≥70% PFS at 6.5 months compared to historical ≤50% PFS at 6.5 months expected with Td (Kropff, M. et al. Haematologica 2012), at a significance level of 0.05. Results: This study has completed accrual. Eighty-three patients [median age of 66 years (42-85)] were enrolled with a median follow up of 15.9 (0.9-26) months. ORR rates were 86.4% (≥VGPR 70.2%). Median PFS was 20m (95% CI 15.9-26m). PFS at 6.5 months was 76.2% (95% CI 73.6-84.9%). Median OS has not been reached, and was 75% at 20 months. The most common grade ≥3/4 AEs were peripheral neuropathy (16%), upper respiratory tract infections (12%), dyspnoea (14%), and hypertension (10%). Grade ≥3/4 cardiac AEs occurred in 6%. The median carfilzomib dose that was delivered was 70.7% (32.8-92.6%) of the target dose. Thus far, 41% of patients have completed the intended 18 cycles of treatment. 21% of patients ceased therapy early. The most common reason for early treatment cessation was disease progression (30%) and adverse events (15%). Fifteen patients (18%) have died, 11 were due to MM, two from infection, one from an ischaemic cardiac event, and one from a traffic accident. QoL, as measured by the EQ-5D-5L instrument, remained stable throughout treatment. Conclusion: The ALLG MM018/AMN 002 study has met its primary endpoint. The KTd schedule as outlined in this study is efficacious in patients with RRMM, resulting in a prolonged PFS and a safety profile in line with previous reports for each of carfilzomib and thalidomide. KTd is an active option in jurisdictions where the cost of other IMiDs prohibits regulatory funding. Comparisons of efficacy and adverse events between the Caucasian and Asian populations will be presented at the meeting. Disclosures Quach: Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Glaxo Kline Smith: Consultancy, Research Funding; Karyopharm: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen Cilag: Consultancy, Honoraria; Sanofi: Consultancy, Research Funding. Harrison:Takeda: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; F. Hoffmann-La Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria; Janssen-Cilag: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Amgen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; CRISPR Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria; BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Patents & Royalties: wrt panobinostat; Haemalogix: Consultancy. Augustson:Roche: Other: Support of parent study and funding of editorial support. Campbell:Amgen, Novartis, Roche, Janssen, Celgene (BMS): Research Funding; AstraZeneca, Janssen, Roche, Amgen, CSL Behring, Novartis: Consultancy. Soo:Hanmi: Research Funding. Durie:Amgen, Celgene, Johnson & Johnson, and Takeda: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Multicenter, Phase IV Observational Study Of Ofatumumab In Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL): A European Research Initiative On CLL (ERIC) Study

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.1645.1645 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 1645-1645 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Carol Moreno ◽

Marco Montillo ◽

Panayiotidis Panayiotis ◽

Adrian Bloor ◽

Jehan Dupuis ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Safety Profile ◽

Research Funding ◽

Response Rate ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Hematologic Toxicity ◽

Phase Ii Trials ◽

Advisory Committees

Abstract Background Ofatumumab was given a conditional approval in the EU on April 2010 for the treatment of CLL refractory to fludarabine (F-ref) and alemtuzumab (A-ref), encouraging the retrieval of further data in patients treated in a “daily life” setting and to investigate treatment safety. Aims The main objective of this study was to obtain information on the safety profile of ofatumumab given outside clinical trials in patients with previously treated CLL. The secondary endpoints were efficacy, progression-free-survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). Methods This was an observational, retrospective study. Patients were eligible regardless of prior treatments or disease status and provided they had not been included in ofatumumab clinical trials. Data on patients’ characteristics at diagnosis, prior treatment, adverse events response rate, PFS and OS were recorded. Results One-hundred and twenty patients were screened of which 103 from 25 centers in 10 European countries were eventually eligible for the study. There were 71 males; median age at initiation of ofatumumab was 64 years (range, 38-84); 66% patients were in advanced clinical stage (Rai III-IV/Binet C) and 33 patients presented bulky lymphadenopathy. Number of prior lines of therapy was 4 (range, 1-13). 94% had received prior F-based therapy, 54% received A-based therapy and 51% received both. Eighty-one percent had been previously exposed to rituximab-combination regimens. Fifty-four percent were F-ref, 70% A-ref and 41% were both F- and A-refractory. Cytogenetics within 3 months prior therapy was available in 52 patients of which 34 presented abnormalities (11 patients: 17p-; 9 patients: 11q-; 2 patients: 13q-; 1 patient: trisomy 12; 11 patients: two or more abnormalities including 17p- or 11q-). Forty-two of 50 patients showed unmutated IGHV genes. The median number of cycles of ofatumumab given was 9 (range, 0-16) and the median percentage of given/planned cycles was 83.3% (range, 0-133). In most patients the treatment dose and schedule were as follows: 300 mg 1st infusion followed by 2000 mg for subsequent infusions (8 weekly followed by 4 doses monthly). One hundred and sixty-one adverse events were reported in 68 patients, with 28 (17%) of them being considered as ofatumumab-related. Infusion related-reactions occurred in 19 (28%) patients (III-IV: 6%). Neutropenia was reported in 26% (III-IV: 19%), thrombocytopenia in 15% (III-IV: 12%) and anemia in 15% (III-IV: 7%). The non-hematological adverse events, included infection 44% (III-IV: 36%), fatigue 10% (III-IV: 4%), fever 10% (III-IV: 6%), rash 10% (III-IV: 3%), cough 7% (III-IV: 1%), diarrhea 6% (grade III-IV: 0%) and nausea 1% (III-IV: 0%). Hematologic toxicity correlated with the number of prior lines of therapy. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia and Richter syndrome were reported in one patient each. Two heavily pre-treated patients (5 and 6 prior lines of therapy, respectively) developed progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. The overall response rate (ORR) was 23% and the median PFS and OS were 5 and 12 months, respectively. The main causes of death were disease progression (61%) and infection (28%). Conclusions The safety profile of ofatumumab given outside clinical trials to patients with poor-prognosis and heavily pre-treated CLL was consistent with that observed in clinical trials. Although not unexpectedly the ORR was lower in this study, PFS and OS were in line with those reported in phase II trials. Disclosures: Montillo: Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Bloor:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Paid speaker Other. Schuh:GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria. Geisler:Roche: Consultancy; GSK: Consultancy. Hillmen:GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding. Stilgenbauer:GSK: Honoraria, support Other. Smolej:GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, travel grants Other. Jaeger:GSK: Honoraria, Research Funding. Leblond:Roche : Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Mundipharma: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Kimby:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Emergent BioSolutions: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Jansen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Cirmtuzumab, a ROR1 Targeted Mab, Reverses Cancer Stemness, and Its Combination with Ibrutinib Is Safe and Effective: Planned Analysis of the Cirll Phase 1/2 Trial for CLL and MCL

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-131498 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1755-1755

Author(s):

Michael Y. Choi ◽

Emanuela M. Ghia ◽

Tanya Siddiqi ◽

William G. Wierda ◽

Hun Ju Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Cancer Cell ◽

Research Funding ◽

Target Genes ◽

Post Partum ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Biologically Active ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Equity Ownership

Cirmtuzumab (Cirm) is a novel humanized mAb specific for ROR1, which is expressed primarily during embryogenesis and in many cancers, including chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and mantle cell lymphoma (MCL), but generally not on normal post-partum tissues. A Phase I study involving patients (pts) with CLL showed Cirm was safe and effective in blocking ROR1-signaling and in reversing cancer-cell-stemness transcriptome signatures associated with aggressive malignancies (Choi et al., Cell Stem Cell, 2018; Malta et al., Cell, 2018). Cirm also was shown to block Wnt5a-ROR1 survival-signaling in CLL or MCL cells of pts taking ibrutinib (Ibr), and had synergistic anti-tumor activity with Ibr in animal models (Yu et al., Leukemia, 2016; Yu et al., Oncotarget, 2018), forming the rationale for testing Cirm+Ibr in pts with CLL or MCL in the CIRLL study (Cirmtuzumab plus Ibrutinib in Relapsed Leukemia and Lymphoma), a 3-part clinical trial: Part 1 (P1)evaluated increasing doses of Cirm with Ibr for safety and to determine the recommended dose regimen (RDR); Part 2(P2) evaluated pts treated with the RDR (Ibr plus Cirm at 600 mg IV on day 1, 14, 28 and then q28 days thereafter). For P1 and P2, we treated 34 pts with CLL (23 with relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL) and 6 pts with R/R MCL who required therapy. Part 3(P3) will randomize patients to receive Cirm+Ibr versus Ibr alone based on the efficacy analysis of data collected in P1 and P2. We did not observe any serious adverse events in pts treated in P2, which had an overall safety profile consistent with that of ibr alone; no new adverse events were attributed to Cirm. Correlative studies showed that Cirm at the RDR suppressed expression of NF-kB-target genes induced by ROR1-signaling and reversed cancer-cell-stemness transcriptome signatures in the CLL cells of treated pts. Of 6 CLL pts treated at or below the RDR with ≥24 wks. of evaluable data, the overall response rate (ORR) was 100%, including 1 patient with a confirmed complete response (CR) with clearance of CLL in the marrow by histology. Another 15 CLL pts with ≥12 wks. of evaluable data had an ORR of 87%. No pt with CLL had progressive disease (PD) on therapy. Of the 6 heavily-pre-treated MCL pts with ≥12 wks. of evaluable data, 2 had a CR (one sustained for 9+ mos.), 2 had a partial response (PR), and 2 had PD. The 2 pts with PD had aggressive disease progression prior to therapy that subsided for 3 to 6 mos. on therapy. Taken together, these data demonstrate that Cirm+Ibr is biologically active, well tolerated, safe, and effective. Moreover, the data from the CLL pts in P1 and P2 of the study support initiation of P3 of the study, which will allow for comparison of the activity of Cirm+Ibr versus Ibr alone for patients with CLL. Disclosures Choi: Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Oncternal: Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Rigel: Consultancy, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Genentech: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Siddiqi:TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; Seattle Genetics: Speakers Bureau; Juno Therapeutics: Consultancy, Other: travel support, Research Funding; PCYC: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Speakers Bureau; Kite, A Gilead Company: Research Funding. Wierda:Genentech: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC: Research Funding; Acerta Pharma Inc: Research Funding; Xencor: Research Funding; Gilead Sciences: Research Funding; Loxo Oncology Inc.: Research Funding; Juno Therapeutics: Research Funding; Cyclcel: Research Funding; KITE pharma: Research Funding; Oncternal Therapeutics Inc.: Research Funding; Sunesis: Research Funding; Miragen: Research Funding; Janssen: Research Funding; AbbVie: Research Funding; GSK/Novartis: Research Funding. Barrientos:AbbVie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy, Research Funding; Sandoz: Consultancy; Oncternal Therapeutics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria; AstraZeneca: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Lamanna:Celgene: Consultancy; Infinity/ Verastem: Research Funding; Ming: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; Oncternal: Research Funding. Isufi:Celgene: Consultancy; Novartis: Consultancy; Astra Zeneca: Consultancy. Bieler:Oncternal Therapeutics: Employment. Ianopulos:Oncternal Therapeutics: Employment. Breitmeyer:Oncternal Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Kipps:Verastem: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; AstraZeneca, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Velos-Bio: Equity Ownership, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Jannsen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Abbvie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Genentech, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Curriculum in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Narrows the Educational Gaps of the Oncology Healthcare Team

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-124808 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 5878-5878

Author(s):

Lauren Willis ◽

Lisa Brauer ◽

Emily S Van Laar ◽

Patrick Kugel ◽

Katie S Lucero ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Side Effects ◽

Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Treatment Selection ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Treatment Naïve ◽

Educational Gaps

Introduction: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukemia in the Western world. Treatment selection in CLL is dependent upon a number of factors, such as patient age and genetic mutations, and can be challenging. A number of novel therapies and combination treatment approaches are now available, making treatment selection and management of adverse events increasingly complex. We sought to determine if a curriculum of online continuing professional education (CPE) activities could improve hematologists/oncologists (hem/onc, H/O), pathologists (path), nurse/NP, and pharmacist knowledge, competence, and confidence related to clinical decision making in patients with CLL. Methods: An expert panel identified educational gaps related to the treatment of patients with CLL. Based on the educational needs identified, the curriculum included 4 activities that were posted online between March 2019-June 2019. The first activity was a 30 minute video lecture (1 faculty) about measurable residual disease (MRD) analysis in CLL. The second activity was 30 minute video roundtable discussion (3 faculty) about treatment initiation and selection in newly diagnosed CLL. The third activity was a text activity focused on relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL with 2 patient cases. The final activity was a video discussion between a nurse and pharmacist about mitigating side effects and optimizing compliance with oral therapies in CLL. Three activities were certified for physicians and the fourth activity was certified for nurses and pharmacists. Multiple-choice questions were asked before and after participation in each activity A repeated-pairs analysis was conducted where individual learners served as their own controls. Improved indicates an incorrect response pre-activity and a correct response post-activity. Reinforced indicates a correct answer pre- and post-activity. Improved confidence indicates a higher level of confidence post-activity. Results: As of July 2019, there were 356 hem/oncs, 154 pathologists, 178 nurses/NPs, and 504 pharmacists included in this analysis. The curriculum had a large impact on the knowledge and competence of hem/oncs and pathologists. MRD is an indicator of improved progression free survival: 13% H/O and path improved their knowledge, 58% H/O and 36% path reinforced their knowledge. The role for MRD measurement in CLL: 24% H/O and 15% of path improved their knowledge, 51% H/O and 39% path reinforced their knowledge. Selecting therapy for treatment-naïve CLL: 13% H/O and 30% path improved their competence, 57% H/O and 36% path reinforced their competence. Selecting therapy for relapsed/refractory (R/R) CLL: 39% H/O and 42% path improved their competence, 26% H/O and 11% path reinforced their competence. Managing treatment-related side effects in CLL: 11% H/O and 33% path improved their competence, 72% H/O and 31% path reinforced their competence. 10% of nurses/NPs and 11% of pharmacists improved and 30% of nurses/NPs and 38% of pharmacists reinforced their skills counseling patients about adverse event management and drug-drug interactions in R/R CLL. Tailoring frontline therapy in treatment-naïve CLL: 26% H/O and 15% path improved their confidence. Tailoring therapy in R/R CLL: 34% H/O and 31% path improved their confidence. Using MRD in CLL management: 31% H/O and 21% path improved their confidence. Improving patient engagement by using effective interprofessional communication: 25% nurses/NPs and 36% pharmacists improved their confidence. Conclusions: This analysis shows that an online CPE curriculum, utilizing many different formats (video, text, panel discussions) can improve and reinforce the knowledge, competence, and confidence of hem/oncs, pathologists, nurses/NPs, and pharmacists in multiple areas surrounding the treatment of patients with CLL. Results also suggest the following areas warrant further education: knowledge of the role for MRD in CLL management, individualizing therapy selection for treatment-naïve and R/R CLL, and managing treatment-related adverse events of CLL therapies. Acknowledgements: Sameer Bhagavatula contributed to data analysis for this research. Figure Disclosures Allan: Verastem Oncology, Inc.: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bayer: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; AbbVie, Inc: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Consultancy; Sunesis Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie company: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Awan:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Abbvie: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; Janssen: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy. Brander:AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics LLC, an AbbVie Company: Consultancy; Tolero: Research Funding; DTRM Biopharma: Research Funding; BeiGene: Research Funding; MEI: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Teva: Consultancy, Honoraria; TG Therapeutics: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Consultancy, Research Funding. Cohen:Genentech, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; LAM Therapeutics: Research Funding; UNUM: Research Funding; Hutchison: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Lymphoma Research Foundation: Research Funding; ASH: Research Funding; Takeda Pharmaceuticals North America, Inc.: Research Funding; Gilead/Kite: Consultancy; Seattle Genetics, Inc.: Consultancy, Research Funding; Bristol-Meyers Squibb Company: Research Funding. Barrientos:Pharmacyclics: Consultancy, Research Funding; Abbvie: Consultancy, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy; Genentech: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Initial Phase 3 Results Of The First (Frontline Investigation Of Lenalidomide + Dexamethasone Versus Standard Thalidomide) Trial (MM-020/IFM 07 01) In Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (NDMM) Patients (Pts) Ineligible For Stem Cell Transplantation (SCT)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v122.21.2.2 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 122 (21) ◽

pp. 2-2 ◽

Cited By ~ 28

Author(s):

Thierry Facon ◽

Meletios A. Dimopoulos ◽

Angela Dispenzieri ◽

John V. Catalano ◽

Andrew R Belch ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Function ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Research Funding ◽

Phase Iii ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Secondary Endpoints ◽

Equity Ownership ◽

To Receive

Abstract Background Melphalan, prednisone and thalidomide (MPT) is a standard therapy for NDMM recognized worldwide based on a statistically significant advantage in overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) vs. MP (Facon Lancet 2007; Fayers Blood 2011; NCCN 2013). The combination of lenalidomide and low-dose dexamethasone (Rd) increased OS with fewer adverse events (AEs) than treatment with lenalidomide and high-dose dexamethasone in NDMM pts (ECOG E4A03) (Rajkumar Lancet Oncol 2010). The FIRST trial is a multicenter, open-label, phase III trial comparing the efficacy and safety of Rd versus MPT in transplant-ineligible NDMM pts. Methods NDMM pts either ≥ 65 years of age, or not candidates for SCT were randomized to one of three arms: Rd in 28-day cycles until disease progression (Arm A), Rd in 28-day cycles for 72 weeks (18 cycles, Arm B), or MPT in 42-day cycles for 72 weeks (12 cycles, Arm C). Assessments by International Myeloma Working Group criteria were done after each cycle. Pts with renal impairment were enrolled; however, pts on dialysis were excluded. Starting doses of lenalidomide and dexamethasone were adjusted based on renal function and age, respectively. Melphalan starting dose was adjusted based on age, absolute neutrophil count, platelet count, and renal function; and thalidomide was adjusted for age. Dose adjustments were permitted for AEs. All pts were required to receive anti-thrombotic prophylaxis. Stratification factors included age, International Stage System, and country. The primary endpoint was a comparison of PFS in Arm A vs. Arm C. Secondary endpoints included OS, overall response rate (ORR), time to response, duration of response (DOR), safety, and quality of life (QOL). A preplanned additional analysis included time from randomization to second progression event or death (PFS2). The final preplanned analysis of independently adjudicated progressive disease (PD) events in Arm A vs. Arm C conducted after 960 events of death or PD, and an interim of OS in 64% of survival events (574/896 events) are presented in this abstract. Comparisons of PFS and all secondary endpoints, including OS for all three arms, will be presented at the meeting. Results A total of 1,623 pts were randomized 1:1:1 in three arms. As of today, 121 pts continue to receive lenalidomide on study (Arm A). The median age was 73 (40.0–92.0) years; 35% pts were aged ≥ 75 years; and 41% of pts had ISS stage 3 disease. After a median follow-up of 37 months, the trial met its primary endpoint (PFS), demonstrating a 28% reduction in risk of progression or death (HR=0.72; p= 0.00006). The preplanned interim analysis of OS demonstrated a 22% reduction in risk of death in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C (HR=0.78, p=0.01685); however, the pre-specified boundary (p<0.0096) was not crossed. All other secondary endpoints consistently showed improvement in favor of Arm A vs. Arm C; ORR (PR or better) 75% vs. 62% (p < 0.00001), DOR (HR=0.63; p<0.00001), and PFS2 (HR=0.78, p=0.0051). Relevant Grade 3/4 adverse events in Arm A vs. Arm C were neutropenia (28% vs. 45%), thrombocytopenia (8% vs. 11%), febrile neutropenia (1% vs. 3%), infection (29% vs. 17%), neuropathy (5% vs. 15%), and deep-vein thrombosis (5% vs. 3%). The incidence of secondary primary malignancies (SPM) was evaluated. Hematologic malignancies were 0.4% in Arm A vs. 2.2% in Arm C; the overall incidence of solid tumors was identical (2.8%). Conclusion Continuous treatment with the all oral doublet Rd significantly improved the primary endpoint of PFS compared with the standard triplet, MPT. All secondary endpoints support the clinical benefit of continuous Rd treatment. The safety profile of Rd was manageable, with reduced hematologic SPM compared to MPT. Disclosures: Facon: Celgene: Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Speakers Bureau. Off Label Use: Lenalidomide as treatment for NDMM. Dimopoulos:Celgene, Orthobiotech: Honoraria. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Millenium, Jansenn, Pfizer: Research Funding. Catalano:Celgene, Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Hulin:Janssen: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Cavo:Celgene, Janssen, Millennium, Onyx, Brystol Myers Squibb: Consultancy, Honoraria, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Pinto:Mundipharma: Consultancy, Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Weisel:Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria; Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Ludwig:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Bahlis:Celgene: Consultancy, Honoraria. Delforge:Celgene: Honoraria. Chen:Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Lundbeck: Consultancy; Johnson & Johnson: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Research Funding. Oriol:Celgen: Consultancy. White:Celgene: Honoraria, Research Funding. Binder:Celgene: Research Funding. Anderson:Acetylon, OncoPep: Equity Ownership; Celgene, Onyx, Sanofi Aventis, Gileod: Consultancy. Moreau:Celgene Corporation: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau. Attal:Janssen: Lectures, Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees; Celgene Corporation: Lectures Other, Membership on an entity’s Board of Directors or advisory committees. Knight:Celgene: Employment, Equity Ownership. Chen:Celgene: Employment. Van Oostendorp:Celgene: Employment. Jacques:Celgene: Employment. Ervin-Haynes:Celgene: Employment, Patents & Royalties. Benboubker:Celgene: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

Natural History of Non-Infectious, Ibrutinib-Attributable Adverse Events Leading to Alternative BTK Inhibitor Use in CLL

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood.v128.22.4385.4385 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 128 (22) ◽

pp. 4385-4385 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Polina Shindiapina ◽

Soun Khountham ◽

Kerry A. Rogers ◽

Jeffrey Jones ◽

Leslie Andritsos ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Subsequent Treatment ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Btk Inhibitor ◽

Grade 3 ◽

Target Effect

Abstract Introduction: The Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor ibrutinib (IB) is currently approved for the treatment of patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma (CLL/SLL), including patients with del17p disease. Treatment with IB is effective and generally well-tolerated. However, a proportion of patients experience intolerable adverse events (AEs) requiring IB discontinuation. Non-infectious toxicities are generally considered to be due to kinase inhibition and it is uncertain if the AE is directly attributable to inhibition of BTK (on-target effect) or to inhibition of an alternative target of ibrutinib (off-target effect). To indirectly examine this, we reviewed toxicity and tolerability data for patients who discontinued IB due to significant AEs and subsequently received an alternative BTK inhibitor. Methods: Patients with previously treated CLL/SLL who were intolerant to IB due to non-infectious IB-attributable AEs and subsequently received a different BTK inhibitor were included in this analysis. Patients with infectious AEs were excluded. AEs arising during IB therapy that were attributable to IB and resulted in discontinuation based on both patient and investigator preference were detailed and graded according to CTCAE v.4.03. These AEs were assessed for resolution or increasing severity after discontinuing IB both before and during subsequent BTK inhibitor treatment. Results: Twenty-one patients were included in the analysis and the median age was 61-years (range 50-76). Patients had received a median of 4 prior therapies (range 2-11). Fifty-eight percent of the patients had Rai stage 3-4 disease, 76% were IGHV un-mutated, and 57% had del17p. Prevalent co-morbidities by organ system prior to start of acalabrutinib included blood and lymphatic system disorders (48%), infectious issues (52%), cardiac disorders (38%), gastrointestinal disorders (43%) and musculoskeletal disorders (33%). Median time on IB was 13 months (range 1.6-62). Reasons for IB discontinuation are detailed in Table 1. With regards to more severe (grade 3 or 4) IB-attributable AEs, 2 patients experienced grade 4 AEs resulting in discontinuation of IB including neutropenia and subdural hematoma. Both these patients had resolution of their AEs prior to starting subsequent treatment. Among the 14 patients discontinuing IB for grade 3 AEs, 1 had ongoing grade 3 diarrhea, 1 had grade 3 arthralgia, and 2 had grade 2 AEs of diarrhea and fatigue at the time of starting subsequent treatment. Of the 21 included patients, 10 had ongoing IB-attributable grade 1-3 AEs at the time of starting a different BTK inhibitor. Three of these patients experienced resolution of one or more IB-attributable AEs (grade 3 diarrhea, and grade 2 AEs including panniculitis, arthralgia and diarrhea) within 28 days of starting therapy, 6 patients had stable grade 1-2 AEs (grade 1 rash in 2 patients, grade 2 diarrhea, grade 1 arthralgia, grade 1 abdominal pain, grade 2 fatigue) at last follow up while taking alternate BTK inhibitor, and 1 patient with an ongoing grade 2 AE at time of treatment initiation developed CNS involvement with their malignancy and was taken off therapy prior to assessment for resolution of the AE. The remaining 11 patients had either complete resolution or improvement of the AE to grade 1 prior to starting the treatment. No recurrence or worsening of IB-attributable AEs were observed during a median follow-up of 13-months on alternative treatment except for 1 patient with hemophilia A, who developed grade 3 hematoma while on IB therapy and experienced recurrent hematoma after 5 days of treatment with a different BTK inhibitor, at which time the drug was discontinued. Conclusions: For patients who discontinued IB due to non-infectious IB-attributable AEs, subsequent treatment with an alternative BTK inhibitor does not appear to aggravate or precipitate IB-attributable AEs that had previously resulted in discontinuation. This supports attribution of these AEs to off-target effects of ibrutinib and not inhibition of BTK. The use of an alternate BTK inhibitor may be a viable therapeutic strategy for patients who discontinued IB due to intolerable AEs without experiencing clinical progression. Disclosures Jones: Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics, LLC, an AbbVie Company: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Woyach:Karyopharm: Research Funding; Morphosys: Research Funding; Acerta: Research Funding. Awan:Innate Pharma: Research Funding; Novartis Oncology: Consultancy; Pharmacyclics: Consultancy.

Download Full-text

A Phase I/II Dose-Escalation Study of Thiotepa-Based Immunochemotherapy in Relapsed/Refractory Primary Central Nervous System Lymphoma; The Tier Trial

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-122830 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 2879-2879

Author(s):

Christopher P Fox ◽

Ayesha S Ali ◽

Dorothee Auer ◽

Steffi Thust ◽

Aimee E Jackson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adverse Events ◽

Phase I ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Primary Endpoint ◽

Dose Escalation ◽

Research Funding ◽

High Dose ◽

First Line ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Dose Escalation Study

BACKGROUND Outcomes for patients (pts) with primary CNS diffuse large B cell lymphoma (PCNSL) have improved over recent years, largely through optimisation of first-line methotrexate (MTX)-containing protocols and dose-intensive chemotherapy consolidation. However, 30-50% of pts experience refractory or relapsed (r/r) disease, which confers very poor outcomes and short survival. By contrast to systemic DLCBL, there is no accepted standard approach for r/r PCNSL. Thiotepa is an alkylating agent highly efficient at crossing the BBB and widely incorporated within high-dose therapy and autologous stem cell transplantation (HDT-ASCT) protocols for PCNSL, but has not undergone dose-finding studies nor been incorporated within salvage regimens for PCNSL. The TIER study investigates the safety and efficacy of adding thiotepa, in a dose-escalation design, to the Rituximab, Ifosphamide and Etoposide (R-IE) salvage regimen1. METHODS TIER is an open label, phase I/II UK NCRI TAP study for pts with r/r PCNSL, previously treated with a high-dose MTX-based regimen. In phase I, the RP2D of thiotepa within the TIER combination was established using a 3+3 design, with dose escalations of 30, 40 and 50mg/m2 (dose level 2 (n=4), 3 (n=5) and 4 (n=27) respectively), given on day 5 of R-IE cycle1. The Phase II primary endpoint was overall response rate (ORR) after cycle 2 of TIER (C2) by centrally reviewed contrast-enhanced MRI2, on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Further treatment and consolidation after the primary endpoint MRI was at the discretion of investigators. Key secondary end-points were 2-year PFS, EFS and OS. RESULTS Thirty-six pts were recruited from Jun 2015-Apr 2019 at 13 centres (characteristics: Table 1). The median number of prior lines was 2 (range 1-4) with 44% of patients deemed refractory to their previous line of therapy. During phase I (n=10) no dose limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed up to and including 50mg/m2 thiotepa, constituting the RP2D (n=27). 56 cycles of TIER were administered across both phases; 5 pts had >1 dose reductions. Median time between C1D1 and C2D1 was 24.7 days (range 22-38). Relative mean dose intensity of thiotepa, ifosphamide and etoposide was 71.8 (SD 44.9), 76.4 (SD 41.6), and 76.8 (SD 41.8) respectively. Further therapy after 2 cycles of TIER was delivered to 41.7% of pts (16.7% ASCT, 22.2% TIE, and 2.8% WBRT). The most common grade 3 / 4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia (47.2 and 55.6% occurring in 15 and 18 pts respectively). 17 serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 12 pts, of which 4 were haematological. Of these, 13 were considered related to TIER. Commonly occurring non-haematological SAEs were respiratory tract infections (23.5%) and seizures (11.8%). At data lock, 10/27 pts had responded to treatment as assessed by local investigators (ORR 37%, CR rate 15%). 13 pts were non-evaluable (7 progressed prior to C2 scan, 2 withdrew consent, and 4 awaiting scans) and classed as non-responders. Following data lock, responses were reported for 3 further pts (2 by local investigators and 1 by central review), resulting in a provisional ORR of 13/27 (48%). For the ITT population, median OS time was 3.52 months (95% CI 2.50, 14.17), and median PFS 2.86 months (95%CI 2.34, 6.05) (Figure 1). 6 pts underwent ASCT consolidation after TIER, of whom 2 have relapsed. CONCLUSIONS This is an early analysis of data from the phase I/II TIER study for a heavily pre-treated group of r/r PCNSL; the first such dose-escalation study for this patient group. Phase I determined a RP2D of 50mg/m2 of thiotepa incorporated in the R-IE regimen. There were no DLTs and toxicities, consistent with an intensive ifosphamide-based regimen. ORR was 10 pts (37%) with 3 further responses reported after data lock. If confirmed by central review, the primary endpoint of activity (ORR 40%) will have been reached. However, notwithstanding the response endpoint, most pts experienced very poor survival outcomes. These data describe the feasibility of TIER as a salvage regimen for r/r PCNSL but question the utility of this approach as a standard option, given the short PFS and OS times, except for the minority of pts who received ASCT. Biological and imaging sub studies are underway to identify predictors of outcome. In the modern era of effective first line immunochemotherapy approaches, pts with r/r PCNSL remain a major area of unmet need for whom novel experimental approaches are urgently required. Disclosures Fox: Gilead: Consultancy; AbbVie: Consultancy; Janssen: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy; Sunesis: Consultancy; Takeda Pharmaceuticals: Consultancy; Atara Biotherapeutics: Consultancy; Adienne: Other: Travel Support. Martinez-Calle:ABBVIE: Other: Travel support. Collins:Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria. Ferreri:Novartis: Consultancy; Celgene: Consultancy, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Kite: Consultancy. Davies:BioInvent: Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Karyopharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Acerta Pharma: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; GSK: Research Funding; Bayer: Research Funding; ADCT Therapeutics: Honoraria, Research Funding; Kite Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MorphoSys AG: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Johnson:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Takeda: Other: Travel, accomodations, expenses. Cwynarski:Adienne: Consultancy; Takeda: Consultancy, Other: conference and travel support , Speakers Bureau; Roche,: Consultancy, Other: conference and travel support, Speakers Bureau; Autolus: Consultancy; KITE: Consultancy; Gilead: Consultancy, Other: conference and travel support, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Atara: Consultancy; Janssen: Other: conference and travel support, Speakers Bureau.

Download Full-text

Triple Combination of Ruxolutinib, Nilotinib and Prednisone Is Safe and Shows Promising Activity for the Treatment of Myelofibrosis Patients, Results of a Phase Ib Clinical Trial (RUNIC)

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2021-150240 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 138 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 3655-3655

Author(s):

Rosa Ayala ◽

Rafael Alonso Fernández ◽

Valentín Garcia Gutierrez ◽

Alberto Alvarez-Larran ◽

Santiago Osorio ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Adverse Event ◽

Pleural Effusion ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Clinical Benefit ◽

Research Funding ◽

Triple Combination ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Phase Ib

Abstract Background: Ruxolitinib is the standard of care for myelofibrosis (MF). However not all patients respond to ruxolitinib and other lose response while on treatment or require discontinuation due to adverse events. Therefore, several clinical trials with ruxolitinib in combination with other drugs are being conducted. We previously showed the synergistic effect of the combination ruxolitinib/nilotinib/prednisone in ex vivo models of peripheral blood mononuclear cells from MF patients and cell lines. Aims: This phase Ib/II study, non-randomized, open-label, evaluates safety and tolerability of ruxolitinib in combination with nilotinib and prednisone in patients with naïve or ruxolitinib-resistant MF. Methods:Between November 2017 and June 2020, 21 patients were included in RUNIC (EudraCT Number:2016-005214-21) at 6 Spanish sites. Six patients were considered screening failures. A total of 15 patients received at least one dose of ruxolitinib and were included in the intention-to-treat (ITT) or the per-protocol (PP) populations. The study design is summarized in figure 1. Out of 15 evaluable patients whose median age was 66.5 years (53.4-70.8). Six patients (40%) had a diagnosis of primary MF, 4 patients (26.7%) post-polycythemia vera MF, and 4 patients (26.7%) post-essential thrombocythemia MF. Most patients had International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) intermediate-1 or -2 disease (5 [33.3%] and 4 [26.7%], respectively), and 9 patients (60%) had JAK2 V617F mutation. Most of the patients (n=13; 86.7%) had received ruxolitinib as previous anti-neoplastic therapy for MF. Results:Eight patients completed 7 cycles (53.3%), and six patients 12 cycles (40%) and nine patients withdrawn because of disease progression, lack of efficacy, or no clinical benefit (n=5), withdrawal of consent (n=2), adverse event (AE) (pulmonary thromboembolism, n=1), and investigator's medical judgment (n=1). All patients experienced at least one AE during the study (the most common were hyperglycemia, asthenia and thrombocytopenia, and 14 patients registered at least one treatment-related AE (the most common were hyperglycemia (22.2%), thrombocytopenia (13.3%), and anemia (8.9%)). Five treatment-related serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported in 2 patients (13.3%), all of them related to nilotinib: one patient had pericardial effusion and bilateral pleural effusion, the other had congestive heart failure, pleural effusion, and pulmonary hypertension. No deaths were registered throughout the study.There were 2 patients with at least one adverse event meeting criteria for dose-limiting toxicity: grade 4 anemia and lumbar pain. Only eight patients were evaluated for spleen lengths at screening and cycle 7 (Figure 2B). Of these, 6 experienced a palpable spleen reduction, 4 of them with a 100% reduction. In contrast, one patient remained with the same spleen length, and one patient experienced a 25% increase.Six patients had both symptom evaluation at screening and cycle 7 (Figure 2D). Four experienced a total symptom score reduction, one patient remained with the same total symptom score, and two patients reported an increase.Six patients had spleen length measures recorded both at screening and at cycle 12. From those, 4 showed a spleen length reduction, 3 of them with a 100% reduction. Conclusions: Ruxolitinib in combination with nilotinib and prednisone showed relevant clinical activity in patients with naïve or ruxolitinib-resistant MF. The tolerability of this combination was acceptable, and the hyperglycemia was the treatment-related AE most frequent. The main cause of trial withdrawn was disease progression, lack of efficacy, or no clinical benefit. Based on these results, this triple combination should be explored in phase II/III clinical trials. Figure 1 Figure 1. Disclosures Ayala: Incyte Corporation: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Novartis: Honoraria, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Astellas: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria. Garcia Gutierrez: BMS: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Pfizer: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Incyte: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding. Osorio: Janssen, Abbvie, Roche: Consultancy. Sanchez: Janssen, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Gilead, Novartis, Amgen: Consultancy. Martínez-López: Janssen, BMS, Novartis, Incyte, Roche, GSK, Pfizer: Consultancy; Roche, Novartis, Incyte, Astellas, BMS: Research Funding.

Download Full-text

Distinct Gene Expression Signatures in Patients with Richter's Syndrome and Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia with Prior Exposure to Ibrutinib

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2020-136172 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽

pp. 30-31

Author(s):

Hanyin Wang ◽

Shulan Tian ◽

Qing Zhao ◽

Wendy Blumenschein ◽

Jennifer H. Yearley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Gene Expression ◽

B Cell ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Research Funding ◽

Cell Activation ◽

Expression Profiles ◽

Lymphocytic Leukemia ◽

B Cell Activation ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Upregulated Genes

Introduction: Richter's syndrome (RS) represents transformation of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) into a highly aggressive lymphoma with dismal prognosis. Transcriptomic alterations have been described in CLL but most studies focused on peripheral blood samples with minimal data on RS-involved tissue. Moreover, transcriptomic features of RS have not been well defined in the era of CLL novel therapies. In this study we investigated transcriptomic profiles of CLL/RS-involved nodal tissue using samples from a clinical trial cohort of refractory CLL and RS patients treated with Pembrolizumab (NCT02332980). Methods: Nodal samples from 9 RS and 4 CLL patients in MC1485 trial cohort were reviewed and classified as previously published (Ding et al, Blood 2017). All samples were collected prior to Pembrolizumab treatment. Targeted gene expression profiling of 789 immune-related genes were performed on FFPE nodal samples using Nanostring nCounter® Analysis System (NanoString Technologies, Seattle, WA). Differential expression analysis was performed using NanoStringDiff. Genes with 2 fold-change in expression with a false-discovery rate less than 5% were considered differentially expressed. Results: The details for the therapy history of this cohort were illustrated in Figure 1a. All patients exposed to prior ibrutinib before the tissue biopsy had developed clinical progression while receiving ibrutinib. Unsupervised hierarchical clustering using the 300 most variable genes in expression revealed two clusters: C1 and C2 (Figure 1b). C1 included 4 RS and 3 CLL treated with prior chemotherapy without prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with prior ibrutinib. C2 included 1 CLL and 3 RS received prior ibrutinib, and 1 RS treated with chemotherapy. The segregation of gene expression profiles in samples was largely driven by recent exposure to ibrutinib. In C1 cluster (majority had no prior ibrutinb), RS and CLL samples were clearly separated into two subgroups (Figure 1b). In C2 cluster, CLL 8 treated with ibrutinib showed more similarity in gene expression to RS, than to other CLL samples treated with chemotherapy. In comparison of C2 to C1, we identified 71 differentially expressed genes, of which 34 genes were downregulated and 37 were upregulated in C2. Among the upregulated genes in C2 (majority had prior ibrutinib) are known immune modulating genes including LILRA6, FCGR3A, IL-10, CD163, CD14, IL-2RB (figure 1c). Downregulated genes in C2 are involved in B cell activation including CD40LG, CD22, CD79A, MS4A1 (CD20), and LTB, reflecting the expected biological effect of ibrutinib in reducing B cell activation. Among the 9 RS samples, we compared gene profiles between the two groups of RS with or without prior ibrutinib therapy. 38 downregulated genes and 10 upregulated genes were found in the 4 RS treated with ibrutinib in comparison with 5 RS treated with chemotherapy. The top upregulated genes in the ibrutinib-exposed group included PTHLH, S100A8, IGSF3, TERT, and PRKCB, while the downregulated genes in these samples included MS4A1, LTB and CD38 (figure 1d). In order to delineate the differences of RS vs CLL, we compared gene expression profiles between 5 RS samples and 3 CLL samples that were treated with only chemotherapy. RS samples showed significant upregulation of 129 genes and downregulation of 7 genes. Among the most significantly upregulated genes are multiple genes involved in monocyte and myeloid lineage regulation including TNFSF13, S100A9, FCN1, LGALS2, CD14, FCGR2A, SERPINA1, and LILRB3. Conclusion: Our study indicates that ibrutinib-resistant, RS-involved tissues are characterized by downregulation of genes in B cell activation, but with PRKCB and TERT upregulation. Furthermore, RS-involved nodal tissues display the increased expression of genes involved in myeloid/monocytic regulation in comparison with CLL-involved nodal tissues. These findings implicate that differential therapies for RS and CLL patients need to be adopted based on their prior therapy and gene expression signatures. Studies using large sample size will be needed to verify this hypothesis. Figure Disclosures Zhao: Merck: Current Employment. Blumenschein:Merck: Current Employment. Yearley:Merck: Current Employment. Wang:Novartis: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Innocare: Research Funding. Parikh:Verastem Oncology: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria; Pharmacyclics: Honoraria, Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Ascentage Pharma: Research Funding; Genentech: Honoraria; AbbVie: Honoraria, Research Funding; Merck: Research Funding; TG Therapeutics: Research Funding; AstraZeneca: Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding. Kenderian:Sunesis: Research Funding; MorphoSys: Research Funding; Humanigen: Consultancy, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Gilead: Research Funding; BMS: Research Funding; Tolero: Research Funding; Lentigen: Research Funding; Juno: Research Funding; Mettaforge: Patents & Royalties; Torque: Consultancy; Kite: Research Funding; Novartis: Patents & Royalties, Research Funding. Kay:Astra Zeneca: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding; Juno Theraputics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Dava Oncology: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Oncotracker: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Sunesis: Research Funding; MEI Pharma: Research Funding; Agios Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Bristol Meyer Squib: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Tolero Pharmaceuticals: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Rigel: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Morpho-sys: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Cytomx: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Braggio:DASA: Consultancy; Bayer: Other: Stock Owner; Acerta Pharma: Research Funding. Ding:DTRM: Research Funding; Astra Zeneca: Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Octapharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; MEI Pharma: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; alexion: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Beigene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.

Download Full-text

Rapid and Robust Mobilization of CD34+ HSCs without G-CSF Following Administration of Mgta-145 Alone or in Combination with Plerixafor

Blood ◽

10.1182/blood-2019-127523 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽

pp. 1961-1961

Author(s):

John F. DiPersio ◽

Jonathan Hoggatt ◽

Steven Devine ◽

Lukasz Biernat ◽

Haley Howell ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Single Dose ◽

Adverse Events ◽

Board Of Directors ◽

Preliminary Data ◽

Research Funding ◽

Fold Change ◽

Employment Equity ◽

Advisory Committees ◽

Cd34 Cells ◽

Equity Ownership

Background Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is the standard of care for mobilization of hematopoietic stem cells (HSCs). G-CSF requires 4-7 days of injections and often multiple aphereses to acquire sufficient CD34+ cells for transplant. The number of CD34+ HSCs mobilized can be variable and patients who fail to mobilize enough CD34+ cells are treated with the combination of G-CSF plus plerixafor. G-CSF use is associated with bone pain, nausea, headaches, fatigue, rare episodes of splenic rupture, and is contraindicated for patients with autoimmune and sickle cell disease. MGTA-145 (GroβT) is a CXCR2 agonist. MGTA-145, in combination with plerixafor, a CXCR4 inhibitor, has the potential to rapidly and reliably mobilize robust numbers of HSCs with a single dose and same-day apheresis for transplant that is free from G-CSF. MGTA-145 plus plerixafor work synergistically to rapidly mobilize HSCs in both mice and non-human primates (Hoggatt, Cell 2018; Goncalves, Blood 2018). Based on these data, Magenta initiated a Phase 1 dose-escalating study to evaluate the safety, PK and PD of MGTA-145 as a single agent and in combination with plerixafor. Methods This study consists of four parts. In Part A, healthy volunteers were dosed with MGTA-145 (0.0075 - 0.3 mg/kg) or placebo. In Part B, MGTA-145 dose levels from Part A were selected for use in combination with a clinically approved dose of plerixafor. In Part C, a single dose MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered on day 1 and day 2. In Part D, MGTA-145 plus plerixafor will be administered followed by apheresis. Results MGTA-145 monotherapy was well tolerated in all subjects dosed (Table 1) with no significant adverse events. Some subjects experienced mild (Grade 1) transient lower back pain that dissipated within minutes. In the ongoing study, the combination of MGTA-145 with plerixafor was well tolerated, with some donors experiencing Grade 1 and 2 gastrointestinal adverse events commonly observed with plerixafor alone. Pharmacokinetic (PK) exposure and maximum plasma concentrations increased dose proportionally and were not affected by plerixafor (Fig 1A). Monotherapy of MGTA-145 resulted in an immediate increase in neutrophils (Fig 1B) and release of plasma MMP-9 (Fig 1C). Neutrophil mobilization plateaued within 1-hour post MGTA-145 at doses greater than 0.03 mg/kg. This plateau was followed by a rebound of neutrophil mobilization which correlated with re-expression of CXCR2 and presence of MGTA-145 at pharmacologically active levels. Markers of neutrophil activation were relatively unchanged (<2-fold vs baseline). A rapid and statistically significant increase in CD34+ cells occurred @ 0.03 and 0.075 mg/kg of MGTA-145 (p < 0.01) relative to placebo with peak mobilization (Fig 1D) 30 minutes post MGTA-145 (7-fold above baseline @ 0.03 mg/kg). To date, the combination of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor mobilized >20/µl CD34s in 92% (11/12) subjects compared to 50% (2/4) subjects receiving plerixafor alone. Preliminary data show that there was a significant increase in fold change relative to baseline in CD34+ cells (27x vs 13x) and phenotypic CD34+CD90+CD45RA- HSCs (38x vs 22x) mobilized by MGTA-145 with plerixafor. Mobilized CD34+ cells were detectable at 15 minutes with peak mobilization shifted 2 - 4 hours earlier for the combination vs plerixafor alone (4 - 6h vs 8 - 12h). Detailed results of single dose administration of MGTA-145 and plerixafor given on one day as well as also on two sequential days will be presented along with fully characterized graft analysis post apheresis from subjects given MGTA-145 and plerixafor. Conclusions MGTA-145 is safe and well tolerated, as a monotherapy and in combination with plerixafor and induced rapid and robust mobilization of significant numbers of HSCs with a single dose in all subjects to date. Kinetics of CD34+ cell mobilization for the combination was immediate (4x increase vs no change for plerixafor alone @ 15 min) suggesting the mechanism of action of MGTA-145 plus plerixafor is different from plerixafor alone. Preliminary data demonstrate that MGTA-145 when combined with plerixafor results in a significant increase in CD34+ fold change relative to plerixafor alone. Magenta Therapeutics intends to develop MGTA-145 as a first line mobilization product for blood cancers, autoimmune and genetic diseases and plans a Phase 2 study in multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2020. Disclosures DiPersio: Magenta Therapeutics: Equity Ownership; NeoImmune Tech: Research Funding; Cellworks Group, Inc.: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Karyopharm Therapeutics: Consultancy; Incyte: Consultancy, Research Funding; RiverVest Venture Partners Arch Oncology: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; WUGEN: Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties, Research Funding; Macrogenics: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioline Rx: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Celgene: Consultancy; Amphivena Therapeutics: Consultancy, Research Funding. Hoggatt:Magenta Therapeutics: Consultancy, Equity Ownership, Research Funding. Devine:Kiadis Pharma: Other: Protocol development (via institution); Bristol Myers: Other: Grant for monitoring support & travel support; Magenta Therapeutics: Other: Travel support for advisory board; My employer (National Marrow Donor Program) has equity interest in Magenta. Biernat:Medpace, Inc.: Employment. Howell:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Schmelmer:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Neale:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Boitano:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Cooke:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Goncalves:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Raffel:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership. Falahee:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Morrow:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership, Patents & Royalties. Davis:Magenta Therapeutics: Employment, Equity Ownership.

Download Full-text